Author
Topic: My View on the Origin of the Universe (Read 3260 times)

I felt like writing about my favorite theory of the origin of the universe, so here goes:

Our universe is composed of precisely 50% negative energy and 50% positive energy. In other words, when you add it all up, the Universe is nothing! To show that the universe came from nothing we need to show that something can produce equal amounts of positive and negative energy spontaneously. Scientists have confirmed that Quantum Fluctuations, or the spontaneous origin of a particle and antiparticle from nothing, do indeed occur. Energy, and of course, matter, since it is derived from energy, may be produced without violating the Law of Conservation.

Of course this all depends on the laws of quantum physics, so where did they come from? Emmy Noether proved that Laws are derived from the symmetries of physics. A symmetry is something that is the same no matter which way it is viewed. A complete void is the same no matter which way it is viewed, and therefore must contain at least some of the familiar laws of physics.

Why do I favor this view? It solves a number of problems. For one thing, if it is the case that something simply always existed, as some atheists and most theists think, then why should that something exist instead of nothing at all?

Secondly, it allows me to give a Stephen-Hawkingesque answer to the question of time (in spite of his original theory in A Brief History of Time being proven wrong): Time is an imaginary construct we use to compare things changing and going in to different states in relation to one another. Without those things there to make a comparison, and with no conscious beings, there simply was no time. To ask what came before the void is to ask, "What is north of the north pole?"

So I'm sitting here at my house at 3 AM, writing about the origin of the Universe, and hoping I'm making sense. Am I?

Why do I favor this view? It solves a number of problems. For one thing, if it is the case that something simply always existed, as some atheists and most theists think, then why should that something exist instead of nothing at all?

What scientist don't figure is knowing the Origin of the Universe must contradicts with the Universe itselfWhatever created or started the Universe must be outside the Universe, i.e. does not follow its laws

Quote

Secondly, it allows me to give a Stephen-Hawkingesque answer to the question of time (in spite of his original theory in A Brief History of Time being proven wrong): Time is an imaginary construct we use to compare things changing and going in to different states in relation to one another. Without those things there to make a comparison, and with no conscious beings, there simply was no time. To ask what came before the void is to ask, "What is north of the north pole?"

Time is not imaginary (That was though before the Theory of Relativity), it is something we don't yet understand, but we proved that it changes with speed (Don't ask me how?)

You believe in a book that has sticks turning into snakes, and you say we are the ones that need help?When you understand why you dismiss all other Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.It is better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however reassuring.

As I understand it, the "negative" energy is gravity and the "positive" energy is matter (along with what we normally consider as "energy"). Given A Brief History of Time--while a good read--is sorely outdated, where do dark energy and dark matter fit in? I think such a dualistic view is a bit simplistic.

However, I do agree that symmetry is part of it, and that the second law of thermodynamics is a broken symmetry, which allows for the expansion of space and the accumulation/illusion of time.

That alone, however, does not explain how the initial perfect symmetry got broken, however. Why would there be quantum fluctuations in a perfect void?

« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 02:39:42 AM by L6 »

Logged

God's existence is contingent upon the illusion that morality is dictated by religious authority.

And by the way, I am aware that A Brief History of Time is outdated, but I do think that Stephen Hawking's 'North Pole' simile is still applicable and still a very good explanation, once you have time to think on it.

I think the matter/anti-matter asymmetry is just another example of the broken symmetry that makes our universe possible. Not to say it isn't worth investigating; any clues into the origin of any assymetry we observe should give us clues into the bigger picture of how it all began.

Quantum fluctuations sounds nice and all, but they require space and time to happen, yes? And space and time are part of broken symmetry. So in a "perfect void", what would cause the "spontaneous symmetry breaking" that gives a structure to the vacuum in which the quantum fluctuations can occur? Note that "laws of physics" and "random event" don't really make sense without a structure to act upon.

Logged

God's existence is contingent upon the illusion that morality is dictated by religious authority.

I think the matter/anti-matter asymmetry is just another example of the broken symmetry that makes our universe possible. Not to say it isn't worth investigating; any clues into the origin of any assymetry we observe should give us clues into the bigger picture of how it all began.

Quantum fluctuations sounds nice and all, but they require space and time to happen, yes? And space and time are part of broken symmetry. So in a "perfect void", what would cause the "spontaneous symmetry breaking" that gives a structure to the vacuum in which the quantum fluctuations can occur? Note that "laws of physics" and "random event" don't really make sense without a structure to act upon.

I don't think "time" is really a "thing", just our comparison of things changing in relation to one another. I'm not sure if quantum fluctuations need space to happen in, but I speculate that once they began happening space would have to appear to give them somewhere to be. Space may be created by the expansion of matter, so the original space may have been caused by the presence of matter.

I think the laws are derived from symmetries (unbroken), as I said, but no spontaneous symmetry breaking could occur without energy, and therefore some of the laws (as we know them) did not appear until after the Big Bang.

I'm not particularly "in" with the equal +energy and -energy thing, is that a fact or your theory?It just confuses me that a universe which amounts in total to no energy, had the initial energy to inflate so quickly :/Is there some sort of solution to that?

I'm not particularly "in" with the equal +energy and -energy thing, is that a fact or your theory?It just confuses me that a universe which amounts in total to no energy, had the initial energy to inflate so quickly :/Is there some sort of solution to that?

From what i've read ..Inflation began when the strong force began to seperate from the electroweak (electromagnetic and weak) force.That everything would have 'supercooled', so that it was losing heat energy, but not changing state like it should have done.Causing the 'space' to expand, but the the energy density at the 'centre' stayed at the same volume, which would cause repulsion because it had room to expand, until the forces eventually seperated which gave a burst of energy, creating atomic particles and raising the overall temperature again.

I have no idea whether that's right or whether i've misinterpreted it .. but that's what i remember :')

The point is that we don't fully understand the nature and physics of the Big Bang, and we won't until we have a theory of Quantum Gravity. When we know what actually happened, we'll be in a better situation to speculate on what came before.

The point is that we don't fully understand the nature and physics of the Big Bang, and we won't until we have a theory of Quantum Gravity.

The Big Bang is only the theory for the expansion of space time. It predicted that the universe would either be expanding or contracting. And since it is expanding as the theory predicts, then it is one of the many evidences supporting the big bang model. Rewind time far enough, and the originating "space" from which all matter spewed out in the big bang is thought to be the singularity.

Now the actual CAUSE of the Big Bang from the singularity is still a question of debate and speculation.

Logged

You believe in a book that has sticks turning into snakes, and you say we are the ones that need help?When you understand why you dismiss all other Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.It is better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however reassuring.

A theory of quantum gravity would surely strengthen our understanding of the Big Bang, perhaps even resolving what caused it in the first place. It may also answer our questions about space. My understanding is that the expansion of the Universe causes space to exist, so perhaps the existence of the first particles would have created the first space.

A theory of quantum gravity would surely strengthen our understanding of the Big Bang, perhaps even resolving what caused it in the first place. It may also answer our questions about space. My understanding is that the expansion of the Universe causes space to exist, so perhaps the existence of the first particles would have created the first space.

Cause & Effect principle states that any action is a cause of a previous actionDiscovery of new first even will never ends

From what we understand ... things just happen at the Quantum level.Maybe there is a cause, but we can only predict things.Nuclear decay, why does that happen? What caused it? Why can't we predict when it will occur?

From what we understand ... things just happen at the Quantum level.Maybe there is a cause, but we can only predict things.Nuclear decay, why does that happen? What caused it? Why can't we predict when it will occur?

These things can happen with no apparent cause, unless you know?

Yes we know, but not in all casesThat is normal in any science, 200 years ago they did not know what cause Insulin to be created in the human bodyDoes this is mean that there is no cause for that

Now the actual CAUSE of the Big Bang from the singularity is still a question of debate and speculation.

Gotcha, so yo believe that there was a cause for the Big Bang, (I called it X if you don't mind)

Then continue into my proof, you will find Allah

Don't flatter yourself. But yes, nearly everyone thinks that there is a cause for the Big Bang. Just simply a "cause." Not a "creator God" as you so arrogantly assert. And stop calling your stupid post a "proof." Like I said before: Your "proof" proves nothing outside of itself, and has absolutely no affect on reality.

Logged

You believe in a book that has sticks turning into snakes, and you say we are the ones that need help?When you understand why you dismiss all other Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.It is better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however reassuring.

Don't flatter yourself. But yes, nearly everyone thinks that there is a cause for the Big Bang. Just simply a "cause." Not a "creator God" as you so arrogantly assert. And stop calling your stupid post a "proof." Like I said before: Your "proof" proves nothing outside of itself, and has absolutely no affect on reality.

"Space is a connecting dimensional and entropic medium which functions as a metric conservation domain for light's free energy. Space does not preexist light, but is actually produced by the intrinsic motion of light itself. The function of space is simply to regulate and ensure the conservation of light's energy, including all other attributes of free energy which require conservation, such as light's entropy and symmetry. Light is the only energy form which can produce its own conservation domain from its own nature (intrinsic motion) - hence its primacy. Time is an asymmetric form of space, (actually produced from space by gravity or the quantum mechanical collapse of an electromagnetic wave), which (via the creation of the historic conservation domain) plays the same dimensional conservation role for matter that ordinary space plays for light. (See: "The Conversion of Space to Time".) "

Yes. I am trying to sort this out in my own mind: First we have the laws of physics, then quantum fluctuations (which produce light), from there we get space and energy which condense into the singularity of the big bang, which makes the entire world around us.

Yes. I am trying to sort this out in my own mind: First we have the laws of physics, then quantum fluctuations (which produce light), from there we get space and energy which condense into the singularity of the big bang, which makes the entire world around us.

Why?Why is it a must?You're just making that up, because you can't yet see any other cause.

I agree, that something, 'God' .. whatever you would call it, is a possibility.But your 'proof' is not proof! :|

If the universe can NOT be of uncaused origin, then why MUST your God be?You cannot justify that, as you cannot prove it, and according to your much loved Cause & Effect principle, you would be wrong to assume an uncaused God. But you will try and justify that by saying that God does not conform with such laws ..

Why?Why is it a must?You're just making that up, because you can't yet see any other cause.

I agree, that something, 'God' .. whatever you would call it, is a possibility.But your 'proof' is not proof! :|

If the universe can NOT be of uncaused origin, then why MUST your God be?You cannot justify that, as you cannot prove it, and according to your much loved Cause & Effect principle, you would be wrong to assume an uncaused God. But you will try and justify that by saying that God does not conform with such laws ..

It is not a must be itself, it is a must because an eternal universe is impossible (by proof) not assertions